Monday, August 28, 2006

This week I'll be in Evansville Indiana for some work stuff (yep, actually doing some travelling for work, go figure), so things will be a bit light, although I suspect I'll be posting stuff @ night, when I get back to the hotel. But we'll see.

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Motivated by Mary Catherine Ham, the guest blogger at Hotair, I decided to go to Porkbusters.org and see just how much slopping at the government's trough our congressmen and senators have been doing with the latest appropriations bill. This bill is supposed to be for Health and Human Services and the Department of Labor, two departments I have to believe we'd be better off without. But let's research a bit and see what our good tax dollars are paying for:

-South Bend IN- $1,000,000 to St. Joseph Health center for a new health information technology system. Yep, a million bucks to let St. Joe upgrade their system. No, we shouldn't expect a hospital to actually pay for their OWN STUFF...heck no. And a million dollars? That system better cure cancer.

-Manchester IN- $1,000,000 for Manchester College for facilities and equipment for the Health and Physical Recreation Center. Um...Manchester College is a private liberal arts school. A RELIGIOUS private liberal arts school. Where it costs $28k+ to attend. And you're going to tell me that they need a million bucks of taxpayer $$ to pay for a Gym?

-NYC, NY- $3,000,000 to City College of New York for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service to prepare individuals for careers in public service, which may include establishing an endowment, library and archives for such center. Now at least the previous two had SOMETHING to do with health and human services or labor....but Charles Rangel and labor in the same sentence would only be appropriate if you're talking about what he has to do to get his fat ass out of a chair.

-Charlottesville, VA - $1.025 mill to University of Virginia Center for Politics for the Youth Leadership Initiative. Again, WTF does this have to do with HHS or Labor?

-NYC (again) - $1,000,000 to ReadNet Foundation, for an online literacy program for at-risk youth in Hudson, NY. Wouldn't this be better porked funded in a Department of Education bill? I mean, if you're going to hide stuff, makes sense to hide it in a bill that's already laden with fat

-Fairfax, VA- $1,000,000 to United Mine Workers of America for the UMWA Career Center's mine worker training and reemployment programs. Because those union dues were pissed away spent to support you.

-Odanah, WI- $750,000 to Bad River Tribe for facilities and equipment for health services. Guess those Casinos aren't working out as well as they thought they would in WI. Hell in Michigan they could buy a hospital for each member of the tribe. Twice.

And it just goes on and on. Read it yourself at Porkbusters.org. It's ridiculous. The funny thing is, they could take this entire bill, throw it out the window, and increase the reimbursement to hospitals for Medicaid/Medicare 10% with the money they would have spent, and the hospitals wouldn't need this additional bureaucracy to help them buy this stuff.

So yesterday, I was called a racist by this liberal, let-everyone into the country no matter their criminal background, type.Now, for those of you who know me, that's damn near as ridiculous as calling me a liberal. But I thought "How in the hell do these people get this sort of idea?".

I mean, who does illegal immigration hurt? White people? Not usually. I mean, it does, but not to the degree that it hurts legal immigrants. Heck, it's the liberal whites who are fighting to keep their low-cost nannies (illegal), gardeners (illegal), and other folks. It's not the mexicans or black crowd.This is not a racist statement, but a statement of fact...white collar folks tend to be, well....white. Illegal immigrants don't tend to diplace them, they displace blue collar folks. While the majority of folks in the blue collar are still white (we're the majority in the country, get over it, I'm not being racist and saying minorities don't work), lots of blue collar folks are minority. Probably a larger percentage of their population than white are in blue collar rather than white collar. I don't have specific numbers that I can quote, but I'm sure the commerce department could provide such.So, is it racist for me to want people to come to our country legally? Hell no. In fact, it seems to me that it's the opposite. It's racist for those who want the cheap labor here to encourage the law breaking to continue. It's racist to say "I don't want to have to pay a fair wage for my child care, so bring in some illegals".The bastion of conservativism and racism, Cesar Chavez (/sarcasm off) advocated severe limitations on illegal immigration, because it lowered the wages of his union members. He even offered his union staffers to be the first incarnation of the Minutemen, because when a strike would be organized, the farmers would send trucks to the Mexican border, load them up with illegals, and bring them back to the farms, to try to break the unions.

Now, I'm sure there are other reasons for advocating illegal immigration (human rights, blah blah etc), but calling someone a racist for advocating much more restrictive immigration regulations just doesn't seem quite logical to me.

Saturday, August 19, 2006

For those of you who don't care, this will be a post about my former employer. Feel free to skip it if you're not interested in the standard stupidity of corporate life.

After talking to a number of my former co-workers in passing, just saying hey, or having them ask me questions about various technical things, I've found out some things that I can't let stand.

1. I did not get fired for something unethical. In fact, they never told me why I was fired. The spineless gutless worm who is the partner in charge, Raj, told me that 'It was time we parted ways'. That's it, nothing more. Truly the reason I was fired was because I called Raj out on his various and sundry stupidities. Measures of success of the group that contradicted themselves, wanting us to work more hours in a week but not giving anyone credit for the hours spent travelling, asking for people to spend time doing 'R&D' type work, but at the same time refusing to give them scheduled time to do it. Stuff like that. That and he allowed the suck-asses in the group, such as Jill, Hendo, Del, et al to basically make decisions that damaged the group and ran down morale (see #2)2. Despite what Raj says, it wasn't me that ran down group morale. It was his asinine, micromanaging decisions. When you tell people who spend a good 10-12 hours a week travelling that those hours are on their own dime and they can't be counted in their overall annual total goal, that is going to bring down morale. When you allow the technical expertise that makes the group the cutting edge, shit-hot group that it is to leave without so much as raising a finger in protest, that is going to bring down morale. When you allow the idiots in the group to continually act like they do something, when everyone knows, including you that they don't, that is going to bring down morale. It's not all about money, Raj. Perhaps in your next leadership/partner retreat, they'll explain that to you.3. To a man(and woman), every person I know who has left Crowe is much happier where they are now. There are two guys who are in the middle east who are happier now than when they were in the group run by this moron. One in Iraq, one in Saudi Arabia. Picture that, 10,000 miles from home, under constant threat of death, and still happier than working for Raj. That should tell you right there all you need to know.

And finally,4. My former boss, whom I stuck up for a LOT when he first came on, is now stabbing me in the back amongst my peers. Saying that I did things that were unethical, didn't help the group, brought the group down, deserved to be fired, etc. Funny thing about that, I showed up to every client, did my work, helped the clients, and not one client complained about me. At least two other members of the group, missed flights, didn't complete their work on time, and clients complained about them. Did they get fired? Nope. Why? Minorities or women. Oh, and they didn't have the balls to step to Raj and call him out on his bullshit.

Anyway, this will be the last you hear about this company from me. However, if I hear one more thing from you Raj, plan on hearing from my lawyer. The security world is a funny business, it's much smaller than you think, and when reputation is all you have and someone else is dragging yours down, it can get ugly.

Friday, August 18, 2006

Well you should. At least according to the liberals/dimwitocrats. With the decision yesterday by Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit, you should feel much better. No longer is it legal for the federal government to listen in on your phone calls to your mom to discuss her tuna casserole recipe. Never mind the fact that they DIDN'T IN THE FIRST DAMN PLACE.These calls:

Involved only calls to or from foreign countries

Involved persons who are not American citizens

Involved persons who were suspected of having ties to Al-Qaeda

But don't listen to me, do some research yourself.

Also, Ms. Taylor is an appointee of Jimmy Carter, who obviously isn't exactly an expert at keeping America safe.

Even the bastion of liberalism that is the Washington Post criticized Ms. Taylor's 'angry rhetoric' filled opinion. Calling it neither scholarly or careful, the Post states that they doubt this will be the last word on the opinion.

One last point, reports last week were that some of the data that was used to break up the plots to blow up the planes from Britain last week was acquired from this program.

For those of you who have such a wee bit of life that you notice when my links on the right change, this is old news. For the rest of us, just wanted to note that I've added a new favorite. Michigan blogger, conservative, and nice legs! Everything you want in a blog.

Thursday, August 17, 2006

Several times I've referred to myself in the blog as a 'libertarian'. Note the small L. I believe in personal liberties and believe that the government has gotten too big, and too in bed with special interests, rather than looking out for the citizens. I agree with Libertarians that government meddling in the business of individuals is one of the biggest issues in America today. Government's role in our country is to maintain order, secure our borders, secure our streets, and settle disputes between citizens & between businesses. Unfortunately, many Libertarians draw the line right there and say that's it. I disagree and will attempt to explain why over the next few paragraphs.

While it would be a great world if we didn't need laws to govern peoples behavior, it's more of a fantasyland than reality. I believe in freedom. I believe that helmet laws are an unnecessary part of our legal system that are merely used to collect fines and oppress bikers. I also believe that seat belt laws are also unnecessary and intrusive. I believe that people who are smart enough to protect themselves will do so, and those who don't, will evolve themselves right out of the gene pool. I agree with simple things like that. However, the Libertarian party believes in the free availability of abortions, something that I'm completely against. Their stance is that it's an inidividuals body, they should be allowed to do with it as they like. My belief is that as soon as the child is conceived, it ceases to become the individuals body. Libertarians also believe that individuals should be allowed to take 'drugs', as long as the individual doesn't hurt anyone else. While I believe that the 'war on drugs' has been a huge waste on resources and has worked to fill our prisons to the ceilings for no apparent reason in many cases, I don't believe that the majority of drugs should be legalized for adults. No matter how much the Libertarians would like to argue that people can make their own rational decisions, I'd welcome them to come visit the real world for a day or two before they go back to their fantasy. Look around you guys. There are plenty of people who can't make their own decisions, either their too friggin stupid, or merely short-sighted. If you truly think that someone on their 18th birthday is suddenly more intelligent than the day before when they were still 17, and can make life decisions, you need to stay in the ivory tower.

The biggest issue that I have with Libertarians is that they take the stand that the war is completely over oil and that we shouldn't be there. Just a few notes about this:1. The war isn't over oil. Yes, there's oil there. Yes, if things finally settle down, we will probably get a large amount of oil from Iraq. But saying that this is a war over oil is like saying the Normandy invasion was a war for wine. Or that Iwo Jima was a war over rubber. It's idiocy. Yes, our economy runs on oil. But there's no big business cabal that says "Hey, go invade Iraq so we can have some cheap oil". Who is hurt the most by high oil prices? Big business? Hell no, they just pass the cost down to consumers. So who actually benefits the most by lower oil prices? Consumers. So, don't you think that if a 'war for oil' were really the case that consumers would benefit in the long run anyway? Example: Things suddenly just stop in Iraq. no more violence, the pipelines settle down, the supplies start pouring out into the world and the price of oil drops to $40/barrel. Do you REALLY think that the price of gas is going to stay at $3.00 a gallon? No way that happens. The market won't allow it because someone is going to lower their price just a penny or two in order to get more market share. Then their competitor will lower theirs, etc. The beauty of the 'free' market.And as for 'big business', that's just an amazingly ignorant joke altogether. Big business? Do corporations just walk down the street? Who makes up corporations? People. Shareholders. You, me, your neighbors, your families. We all make up corporations. Our 401ks hold shares of them, our IRA's hold their stock, and if we work together, WE ARE big business. To think otherwise ignores the rules of the market.

Anyway, while I will give the Libertarian candidate for governor in Michigan some props here, he needs to put his positions out on his site more for someone like me to support him. And until the Libertarians put aside their utopian ideas on drug laws and abortion, I'll stick as a Republican with libertarian values.

In a full page advertisement in the LA Times, a veritable who's who of Hollywood came out against terrorists and the violence that they are responsible for.

Granted, it's wholly symbolic, but it's still interesting to see folks putting their names to such a stance when the international and national liberal leadership is comparing Hamas and Hezbollah to freedom fighters and our founding fathers.

Good to know that not all the folks out on the left coast are complete whackjobs. Just most of them.

Wednesday, August 16, 2006

Jennifer Granholm has been campaigning saying that her leadership has helped Michigan retain jobs and she needs another four years to implement the things that she said she would implement over the last four years.Of course, she blames the fact that she didn't get it done on John Engler, the previous governor, because supposedly he left her with a horrible deficit, bad budget, etc. And she blames the loss of jobs in the state of Michigan on George W. Bush and the Republicans in DC.

Curiously, she doesn't note that under George W. Bush, no other states (other than hurricane ravaged Louisiana) lost jobs last year. She also doesn't mention the fact that during the past four years the GDP of every state other than Michigan and Louisiana has increased as well.

Dick DeVos, who I'm not 100% sold on as a candidate for governor, but he's the only choice we have, has played the political game pretty well so far. His campaign has stayed above board, out of the mud, and for that, I'm impressed. Once Ms. Granholm started seeing her once formidable lead disintegrate, she immediately got into the mud and started accusing DeVos of exporting jobs to China. I guess he touched a nerve.

But my point to her is, even if DeVos exported every job that he's created over the last 10 years of philanthropy and business to China but one, that's one more job than she created in the last year.

I guess that money that the governor cut out of the education budget that the Republican House and Senate wanted should have been spent on mathematics education.

Monday, August 14, 2006

I love the apologists in the mass media who would equivocate the Hamas or Hezbollah terrorists with our founding fathers. Love those people, because it definitely shows me the ones that obviously I'll no longer need to waste my time to listen to.Take a look at the Hamas/Hezbollah/Jihad animals and how they treat people who they suspect as collaborators. Notice, I didn't say that the person WAS a collaborator, I said he was someone that they THINK is one. Otherwise known as someone who pissed off someone within those organizations who in turn probably spread a rumor that he was collaborating. If the Marines in Guantanamo did ANYTHING like this, America would be condemned as uncivilized and in violation of 47 different international laws, as well as being war criminals , blah blah blah. But let these animals do it, it's just excused by the apologists as them releasing their anger because we've oppressed them.

Why do they call them liberals?

Because spineless whiny apologist wimp bitches doesn't fit well into a news article.

Thursday, August 10, 2006

I read this on Just Ramblings, Mr. Fishback's blog, and I had to share it here. He's not sure of the original author, nor am I, so if you know, please let me know and I'll properly attribute it. I was going to link it, but decided that if I did that, maybe some of you wouldn't go. So rather than risk that, I really want folks to see it, so read the whole thing:

I once witnessed a bar fight in downtown Olongapo (Philippines) that still haunts my dreams. The fight was between a big oafish bully and a rather soft-spoken, medium sized Latino sailor from my ship. All evening the bully had been trying to pick a fight with one of us and had finally set his sights on this diminutive shipmate of mine...figuring him for a safe target. When my friend refused to be goaded into a fight the bully sucker punched him from behind on the side of the head so hard that blood instantly started to pour from this man's mutilated ear.Everyone present was horrified and was prepared to absolutely murder this bully, but my shipmate quickly turned on him and began to single-handedly back him towards a corner with a series of stinging jabs and upper cuts that gave more than a hint to a youth spent boxing in a small gym in the Bronx.Each punch opened a cut on the bully's startled face and by the time he had been backed completely into the corner he was blubbering for someone to stop the fight. He invoked his split lips and chipped teeth as reasons to stop the fight. He begged us to stop the fight because he could barely see through the river of blood that was pouring out of his split and swollen brows.Nobody moved.Not one person.The only sound in the bar was the sickening staccato sound of this sailor's lightning fast fists making contact with new areas of the bully's head. The only sound I have heard since that was remotely similar was from the first Rocky film when Sylvester Stallone was punching sides of beef in the meat locker.Finally the bully's pleading turned to screams.... a high, almost womanly shriek. And still the punches continued relentlessly. Several people in the bar took a few tentative steps as though they wanted to try to break it up at that point, but hands reached out from the crowd and held them tight. I'm not ashamed to say that mine were two of the hands that held someone back.You see, in between each blow the sailor had begun chanting a soft cadence: "Say [punch] you [punch] give [punch] up [punch]... say [punch] you [punch]were [punch] wrong [punch]". He had been repeating it to the bully almost from the start but we only became aware of it when the typical barroom cheers had died down and we began to be sickened by the sight and sound of the carnage.This bully stood there shrieking in the corner of the bar trying futilely to block the carefully timed punches that were cutting his head to tatters... right down to the skull in places. But he refused to say that he gave up... or that he was wrong. Even in the delirium of his beating he believed in his heart that someone would stop the fight before he had to admit defeat. I'm sure this strategy had served him well in the past and had allowed him to continue on his career as a barroom bully. Finally, in a wail of agony the bully shrieked "I give up" and we gently backed the sailor away from him.

I'm sure you can guess why I have shared this story today. I'm not particularly proud to have been witness to such a bloody spectacle, and the sound of that bully's woman-like shrieks will haunt me to my grave. But I learned something that evening that Israel had better learn for itself if it is to finally be rid of at least one of its tormentors:This is one time an Arab aggressor must be allowed to be beaten so badly that every civilized nation will stand in horror, wanting desperately to step in and stop the carnage... but knowing that the fight will only truly be over when one gives up and finally admits defeat. Just as every person who had ever rescued that bully from admitting defeat helped create the cowardly brute I saw that evening in the bar, every well-intentioned power that has ever stepped in and negotiated a cease fire for an Arab aggressor has helped create the monsters we see around us today.President Lahoud of Lebanon, a big Hezbollah supporter and a close ally of Syria, has been shrieking non-stop to the UN Security Council for the past two days to get them to force Israel into a cease fire. Clearly he has been reading an autographed copy of 'Military Success for Dummies Arab Despots' by the late Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt. Ever since Nasser accidentally discovered the trick in '56, every subsequent Arab leader has stuck to his tried and true formula for military success:1. Instigate a war.2. Once the war is well underway and you are in the process of having your ass handed to you... get a few world powers to force your western opponent into a cease fire.3. Whatever you do, don't surrender or submit to any terms dictated by your enemy. That would ruin everything! All you have to do is wait it out and eventually the world will become sickened at what is being done to your soldiers and civilian population... and will force a truce.4. Once a truce has been called you can resume your intransigence (which probably caused the conflict in the first place), and even declare victory as your opponent leaves the field of battle.

This tactic has never failed. Not once. In fact it worked so will for the Egyptians in 1973, that to this day they celebrate the Yom Kippur War - a crushing defeat at the hands of Israel - as a military victory! No kidding... it's a national holiday over there!President Lahoud has already begun to shriek like a school girl to the UN Security Council to "Stop the violence and arrange a cease-fire, and then after that we'll be ready to discuss all matters." Uh huh. Forgive me if I find that a tad hard to swallow. He allowed Hezbollah to take over his country. He allowed the regular Lebanese army to provide radar targeting data for the Hezbollah missile that struck the Israeli destroyer. He has turned a blind eye while Iranian and Syrian weapons, advisers and money have poured into his country. And now that his country is in ruins he wants to call it a draw. As much as it may sicken the world to stand by and watch it happen, strong hands need to hold back the weak-hearted and let the fight continue until one side finally admits unambiguous defeat.

USA Today had a great editorial today on their site about Mr. Gore and his preaching. More specifically, his hypocritical preaching.Gore preaches at Americans to sacrifice in their personal lives, reduce their consumption in order to 'save the planet' from a sure apocalypse. But in actuality, does Gore do anything to actually put his money where his mouth is?

In short...NO.

He and Tipper live in a 10,000 square foot, 20 room, 8 bathroom place in Nashville, which I do not begrudge him whatsoever. However, the supply of power in that area can be done through renewable sources (solar, wind, etc). Has Mr. Greenjeans signed up to pay the extra couple of cents per kilowatt to live a 'carbon-neutral' lifestyle? No. How about his 4,000 square foot home in Arlington Virginia? Surely, he's signed up for the renewable powered energy option there, since it's a smaller place and will probably be a cheaper option (although given the fact that Al was GIVEN thousands of shares of Google as a payment for sitting on their board, I don't think $.02 per kilowatt will break him). No, he hasn't signed up for it there either.

Does he drive a hybrid? NoDoes he use mass transportation when traveling across the world to promote his movie and policies? No. He uses a private jet. Of course, he says he pays for renewable energy credits to offset the pollution he produces when using a private jet to promote his film. In actuality, the movie company pays that as well, so it's disingenuous for him to assert that.

How about his stock holdings? You'd think that someone as 'green' as Al would never hold a company like Exxon or Occidental Petroleum in their portfolio right? Wrong.

Ok, well, at least he doesn't allow companies to mine for Zinc in an environmentally unfriendly way on his property right? Wrong again, as Pasminco Zinc operates a mine on his property in Tennessee and has been cited for adding large quantities of barium, iron, and zinc to a local river.But the $20,000 in royalties that Mr. Gore gets doesn't seem to get pointed toward an organization to clean that up.

Just nice to know that hypocrisy isn't just restricted to people who currently hold office.....

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

The next 90 days should prove to be some of the most interesting political watching times in a long time. Ned Lamont's squeaker of a victory in Connecticut proves one thing, that Kos and his other nutbags are definitely good at getting out the radical left-wing vote. What remains to be proven is whether they can prove to the rest of the sentient beings in CT (they are few and far between from my understanding) that their candidate deserves their vote.

I predict that Liebs will win in November, as an independent, 55-45, but still remain the moderating, decent voice in the Senate that he usually is, with the occasional rant out to the left.

What seriously shocked me, and I'm not easily shocked, was the complete and total antisemitism in many of the comments on some of the sites supporting Lamont. I mean, I expected one or two comments saying that Lieberman and his wife Hadassah are part of a giant Zionist conspiracy, blah blah.....but wow. I mean, the hatred was palpable, and about every fifth comment or post was something about Zionism, jews running everything, Israel oppressing the Pallys, 'hebs' being taught a lesson, etc.

Yet people of the Jewish faith still turn out in droves for the Dimwitocrats. Much like the Black voter block, the Dimwits can always count on them, no matter how much they abuse them in the process.

I would like to thank my readers for their tolerance during this latest issue...Not sure what the problem is/was, but we're about 90% back. IE still doesn't play well with the blog layout, but to be honest, who the hell cares? IE sucks anyway.

Anyway, as you'll notice, I've reposted several things that I had to delete to just today, so it'll look a bit weird until I get it squared away. Hopefully I'm now on the downhill slide toward completion.

I'd really like to get it working right, because I have a term paper to write and this isn't helping my concentration on that.

So, any of my code-headed friends who are familiar with style-sheets, if you wanna throw together some assistance, I'd appreciate it greatly.

I chose stole the title of this post from a piece in the Opinion Journal about the extreme hatred on the left side of the aisle of anyone who disagrees with them. The piece goes on to say that as they were brought up in a liberal household, they were taught that only the right is able to spew hatred and vitriol and the left is way more tolerant of others. But the writer, Lanny Davis, White House special counsel during the Clinton years, goes on to note that the vile, anti-semetic, emotionally charged, offensive sewage that gets posted at various liberal blogs, such as the Huffington Post and Daily Kos, has convinced him that his assumptions were wrong.Well, for once, Lanny and I agree on something. Having just been in a policial discussion with my boss, who is a liberal somewhere left of Cynthia McKinney, I could see the anger and emotion in her eyes and hear it in her yelling points of view. Her utter lack of ability to HEAR what I was saying and inability to accept the fact that not all Republicans were 1. stupid, 2. evil, 3. rich, or 4. looking to exploit 'the people' showed me exactly what Lanny writes about in this piece. They are so married to this hatred of conservatives and their ideas, or even anyone that doesn't agree with them, including more moderate Democrats (read: Joe Lieberman) have to be hated, that I'm not sure how they'll ever reconcile their emotions into some form of reasonableness. Now during the 90's, there was some definite dislike of Bill Clinton and in some wings of the conservative/libertarian movements, some definite hatred. But I never saw it to this degree. I never saw the hatred to the point of not just wanting to defeat their ideas, but to destroy them personally and politically. Clinton used a term that I think is actually applicable today, 'the politics of personal destruction'. He used it in a paranoid fashion where he was accusing his opponents of trying to personally destroy him, when in actuality, he WAS having sex in the Oval Office with an intern (thus showing himself to be a liar). However, most conservatives knew that Clinton was just a buffoon, not really someone to be hated, but rather worked against to ensure that his policies didn't become law.

Something I find interesting is that during the 2000 election, I was having a debate online with an anarchist, who said that if Bush wins, activism will begin to awake from an 8 year slumber and start showing up again. I disagreed with his take that activism had been dead, merely that it takes different forms when Republicans are doing it than when Democrats are. But he certainly was right, the leftwing/anarchist activists are out in full force, marching in the streets, protesting, etc.Always wondered why Republican/conservatives don't do that, and then I remembered that the majority of us have jobs...jobs that don't let us do that sort of thing. Not in unions where they're paid to show up to protests like that. Not students who live off mommy and daddy's money. Jobs. The types of jobs that keep the economy moving forward so that mommy and daddy can keep sending the punk anarchists to school, and the types of jobs that help prop up those failed unions.

Allow me to remind you Islamofacist scum exactly what happened to the last set of people that pissed us off sufficiently to require the use of real force, about 61 years ago(yesterday). Of course that assumes that we as a people can muster enough balls to stand up and fight.

Ok, so you probably know that my opinion of 'hate crimes' is that it's a bastardization of the legal system to ensure that someone achieves 'victim' status and has further reason to sue later.But, if you're going to have 'hate' crimes, perhaps we should have some thing called a "we're lying about this crime so that angry mobs of people don't gang up on muslims and kill them" crimes.

I mean seriously, someone firebombs a door at a Baltimore Hebrew University and they attribute it to juvenile delinquents? PUHLEEZE.

A muslim forces his way into a Jewish community center by grabbing a 13 year old girl and holding a gun to her head, and this is not a hate crime? Jesus Christ, the guy SAID "I'm a muslim American, angry at Israel". Is that NOT the definition of a hate crime, being mad at someone and picking on them solely because of what, who, or what color they are? And when people asked if this was an act of terror, the 'authorities' said "We believe it's a lone individual acting out his antagonism". Are you friggin kidding me?

The idiot in North Carolina that ran his Explorer into a crowd of kids at the University of North Carolina because he was angry about the American policy in Iraq. Hate crime? NAW...just good old fashioned kids having fun. Oh yeah, he was a muslim too.

Maybe I just have too much logic in my brain to wrap around this sort of political correct bs, but I can guarantee one thing. If a mosque were to be firebombed, spray painted, or vandalized in any way, that would be considered a hate crime by the local authorities and they'd probably bring in the FBI.

Nice double standard ya got there, morons. What the hell is wrong with this picture?

Want a crash course in how to dissect the mainstream media bias in their coverage? Just go here and take a look at how the 'guy in glasses' is in every single picture, including ones from several years ago.

Israel is not targeting residential areas, unless rockets are fired from within those areas. Much like the US, Israel has amazingly good technology and can see from satellites and drones where these rockets are being fired, within a 10 foot radius.For the liars in the mainstream media to say that the Israeli military is deliberately targeting civilians, is just more BS that they're trying to spoon-feed the majority of the world.Truth is, Hezbollah is hiding in those regions, as everyone already knows, and firing at Israel from those civilian targets. Yes, Israeli bombs kill children and women. But it's the Hezbollah idiots firing rockets from those neighborhoods who have the blood on THEIR hands for this.